More regulation is only going to result in less flexibility and accomodation. And because those writing the regulations are trying to write a one size fits all policy, there's going to be less understanding as well.

In the situation with the pricing ... yes the regulation is great. It required everyone to be on the same playing field, therefore not penalizing the airline that chose "to do the right thing" ... but when I go to a store in the U.S. they aren't required to add in tax in the advertised price...so why would an airline?

Many of the issues you wrote about aren't about "the airline" as much as the particular agent you got. Some will go above and beyond, some will not. You send a policy out to 10 people, and you'll get 6 interpretations of it. Send it out to 10,000 and imagine the chaos. Every industry has them. Alaska is a smaller airline, and its sometimes even hard for us to make sure all of our employees are on the same page. I can't imagine how it is for a larger airline ... especially one like UA who has 10 times our numbers and has just merged.

Sometimes, the "right thing to do" that's obvious to you, is exactly the opposite for someone else. Holding a plane for a late inbound connection is the right thing to do for the 3 people who would otherwise get stuck overnight ... but at some point, its the wrong thing to do for the 140 people who want to get home.

What if you had been the guy behind you in the snowstorm line who was holding an F ticket and now couldn't get home because the agent had given the last F seat to a guy on a cheap coach fare.
The tarmac delay plan is the obvious right thing to do if you're the guy sitting on a plane for 8 hours in the snow with no food. But if you're on the plane who would have made it out at 3 and a half hours, but now your flight is cancelled because you had to turn back to the gate at 3, and the crew times out as soon as you open the door ... it wasnt so right for you. (and I would expect that latter happens way more than the former)

It doesn't make it any less frustrating for those caught in a bad situation, but there seems to be a lot of management by exception being handed down ... and when is that ever a good idea?

That's the gist of it yeah, but I'll pm more details to missydarlin when I get a chance in the next few days.

If this happened in Sept... then the new ruling was already in effect.

I'm guessing it was a DL issued ticket. And because DL was considered the primary/marketing carrier for the itinerary, AS was required to charge the DOT fees.

It would be helpful to know if you were expecting the AS bag waiver based on status or Club 49 membership. Look forward to your PM :)

He could claim it on both fronts ;) That's one thing I'd like to see AS do- not completely related to the discussions at hand, but if AS would give something to differentiate Club 49 elites- higher baggage allotments (like DL does @ 70 lbs is one idea)

Now with a DL issued ticket ex-AS city, would AS agree to honor the DL agreement with baggage at 70 lbs for AS Golds or higher, or would they charge $25+ a bag that non elites get? [that's an underlying question I have]

Thanks ^

if you were ticketed before November 15, 2012, then you should be fine

Yes, by all means, lets make it MORE complicated ;)

International transits have not happened since 9/11. Everyone, even those transiting the US, must go through US immigration and customs. So this new rule won't affect that.

I don't think you understand "conjuncted" tickets. That just means if there are more than four segments you need two consecutively-numbered "conjunctive" tickets. It does not mean two tickets that are "linked" or anything else. Basically conjunctive tickets are, for all practical purposes, still one ticket.

I tend to disagree. That was the dire warning of airlines, but I haven't heard of excessive numbers of cancellations and passengers waiting for days on end to get onto another flight due to a tarmac rule cancellation, no room on other full flights to get rebooked on, etc.

Hmm. Certainly a complicated issue...

International transits (where you don't formally enter the transit country) occur by the thousands every day in most countries other than the USA. I'd be surprised if I haven't had at least 100 of them since the date you mention, supra.

It will most affect 'that' and make these sorts of connections nearly impossible, as well as expensive. (1 hour turning into 4, entrance and/or visa fees before you can even get to your luggage), possible departure taxes to get back through security, etc.)

Since the thread is about a change in AS baggage policy, the relevant subset mentioned by fti is AS flights, connecting from or to, with regards to the U.S. post-9/11 restriction on international transit.

Sure, something like AS to CX in Vancouver is possible, but this line of argument further diminishes the fraction of AS travelers for whom the change is relevant: an AS international flight connecting to/from another international flight, with checked bags, on separate tickets.

Not to get too nitpicky, but plenty of us get a partner award ticket issued on AS ticket stock to a number of international destinations, and we get as far as we can get, or to wherever there may be available award space, and then buy tickets on other carriers to get to our final destination. It is very relevant.

I know what conjuncted tickets are; an itinerary I'm planning will require them due to the number of segments. I was more responding to the poster who asked if OTAs issue all flights on one ticket or for some reason issue conjuncted tickets as regardless of the answer, DL will consider them in the same way. One would hope that AS would follow a similar policy as it would be unfortunate to purchase a conjucted ticket and have the ticket break happen between a commonly sold short connection between two carriers. I realize that the distinction will affect even fewer people, but as one is more likely to have conjuncted tickets on an already complicated international itinerary, eg OME-CPT, it's one less thing to worry about.

As a side affect of this rule, it might be beneficial for AS elites to book AS-operated DL codeshares in lieu of having the change fee waiver and price guarantee when booking with AS. If ones upgrade clears on the AS flight, AS would be required to accept three 70lb bags for free and allow MVPG/MVPG75K passengers two 70lb checked bags for free if their upgrade doesn't clear. Now if DL would bring back the rule allowing two 70lb checked bags for MVPs/FOs who don't have a DL AMEX...

I booked a FIRST companion certificate BA award requiring me to get to a BA destination on my own (as their certificates are only good on BA metal). I got flights from SFO to Heathrow and returning via LAX. I live in PDX so I then bought F companion certificate flights from PDX-SFO and returning LAX-PDX. I called Alaska and had them link the two reservations. I did all of this 3 or 4 months ago. The trip is next June/July. There is no luggage fee on either BA or Alaska since all of the flights are in F. Do I now have to re-book the Alaska segments to buy several more hours on each travel day to go collect my luggage and dump it with the other carrier and then go through TSA again? This would turn my 2 hour layovers into 4-5 hour layovers. How can this make sense? Any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated.

"Linking" a reservation likely does nothing more than having a memo field, which if the agent sees it, will say (in code) passenger connecting to/from BA2xx (etc.) It does nothing to affect the contract of carriage, or really anything else, and an agent won't sometimes notice anything.

I'd see what AS says, make sure there is a memo field such as "pax guaranteed interline baggage to BA" etc. etc. (if an agent will do that) so that you'll have something more definitive.

missydarlin has been vouched for by the very nice Chelsea with whom I just spoke at AK. She pointed me to the AK website which has a link on its right side which states: BAGGAGE RULE CHANGES: Effective 1/15/13 for tickets issued on/after November 15, 2012.
so there ya go! Thanks missydarlin!